Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2011 - 11:05am PT
|
your claim of the decrease in rate and why that has absolutely anything to do with the fact that the worlds human population is still increasing.
Because it has big implications on when the population will stabilize.
We could explain everything to you in great detail but then you would just find something else to dispute.
It seems you don't want anyone infringing on your freedoms due to AGW. That's find, I totally get that. But it also seems that desire has clouded your thinking where you can't accept any information that has to do with AGW.
There is a whole spectrum of positions on AGW, from humans are doing nothing to change the environment so we don't need to change anything to humans are quickly changing the environment and we have to stop ALL co2 emissions or humanity will soon die. You seem to assume anyone concerned with AGW is like the latter AND they are 100% certain of it. In reality no one on the taco feels the latter (that I know of). You are either incapable of or simply don't want to see the subtleties of peoples different positions on the issue. Throughout this thread you make incorrect assumptions of other posters thoughts and lives over and over. Until you can get past that there no point trying to debate you. However anyone lurking on this thread will see how you and other deniers act and how you can't debate the true facts.
Again there is nothing wrong with being skeptical, I'm skeptical especially of the effectiveness of any governmental actions. And as mentioned this thread title is rather unfortunate. Because it goes beyond being skeptical and has moved into denial for Chief, CC, and other vehemently opposed to even the possibility of AGW. Because of that denial they can't see the fallacies in their arguments, their constant moving of the goal posts, and their refusal to accept the most probable explanations for the data we see.
It's funny that they think they are smart for not falling for some worldwide AGW conspiracy hoax, but they don't see they are being fooled by the anti AGW propaganda created by PR firms hired by people who want to keep the status quo. It's easy to find the logical holes in this argument but of course they won't see them because they don't want to.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2011 - 01:07pm PT
|
“When Al Gore talks about Manhattan flooding this century, and 20 feet of sea level rise, that’s simply not going to happen. If it were going to happen, he wouldn’t have bought his multi-million dollar mansion along the coast in California.”
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2011 - 10:16pm PT
|
ED: You are completely dancing around the question. Appears you do not want to be honest by stating a definitive yes or no.
Hey Chief, you're wasting your time trolling Ed, he's way out of your class. best stick to the others. You got them gaffed.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2011 - 09:26am PT
|
bookworm wrote:
“When Al Gore talks about Manhattan flooding this century, and 20 feet of sea level rise, that’s simply not going to happen. If it were going to happen, he wouldn’t have bought his multi-million dollar mansion along the coast in California.”
In "An Inconvenient Truth", Al Gore spoke in the conditional tense, explaining "what would happen" if the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melted.
Honest question, have you seen the movie?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 20, 2011 - 12:31pm PT
|
There have in fact been many very recent studies/polls indicating that the AGW side is losing ground in their efforts to promote their view. Why? Just look at your posts towards any skeptic/denier. That is the analysis that is being offered as well as the feedback that the every day American population is resonding with.
The other more important fact is that most American's do not have time for it. They are too busy trying to stay even, keep their homes, put food in their mouths etc.
This aligns with the question that Norton has repeatedly asked The Chief, which he refuses to answer--that folks fear a "carbon tax" will hit their pocketbooks, and they just don't have the wherewithal for that extra hit.
Combine this with the corporate-controlled MSM's message on AGW, and voi la, you get polls and opinions from folks who don't know beans about AGW.
Look at the recent Supreme Court Decision, saying that the control of carbon emissions belongs in the powers of the EPA. But just recently, didn't the legislative body vote to take away the EPA's power to regulate carbon emissions?
Around and around we go.
But Ed is perfectly correct. Fossil fuels are non-renewable. One way or the other, we'll decrease our use of them.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2011 - 02:12pm PT
|
Chief...did you notice that your ship needed a longer ladder the last time you docked?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 20, 2011 - 09:32pm PT
|
So TGT, does that report mean anything to you?
|
|
kunlun_shan
Mountain climber
SF, CA
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2011 - 09:52pm PT
|
^^ If "global warming" is happening, how come its so cold?! ;-)
edit - I don't actually believe this, but its what a lot of people say who think climate change is a conspiracy. Instead we're getting more extreme weather events.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2011 - 11:24pm PT
|
So TGT, does that report mean anything to you?
No more sushifests!
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 21, 2011 - 03:02am PT
|
If "global warming" is happening, how come its so cold?! ;-)
OK, got it.
So, what will you say when the next record-breaking heat wave hits?
(Actually, you don't have to wait...)
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 22, 2011 - 01:55am PT
|
nice write up Ed.
|
|
Ashcroft
Trad climber
SLC, UT
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2011 - 12:28pm PT
|
Very eloquently stated Ed.
For those who would like to delve a little more deeply into the concept of global climate and the machinery of predicting future climate, I recommend
A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming by Paul Edwards. This book is solid. It takes a while to read, but the reward is a deeper appreciation of the scale of the process of collecting global data, turning that data into meaningful information, and developing theories based on that information.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2011 - 12:32pm PT
|
But a non-scientist may not interpret the words the same way
To wit, the gist of the problem. The non-scientists are one thing, the idjits are a whole 'nuther.
Is Sarah in the house?
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2011 - 01:01pm PT
|
Very nice writeup of science and public perception, Ed. While I agree with 90% of what you say, I think the remaining 10% is too significant to let it alone.
Here's the problem: Scientists really *do* deal with truth, even in the very specific and absolute way that you define it. The trouble is that it's not really easy to pinpoint the absolute truths until long after the fact. That's why the scientists are loath to use the term. But as non-scientists, we should be cognizant that much of the consensus theories *are* fact.
I'll give an example: Newtonian physics actually *was* factually accurate for almost all the areas in which it was applied.
Let's say I'm an orange vendor in a vegetable market that gets hit by a tornado. I'm picking through the remains, pointing out all the oranges. Let's say that among all the jumbled fruit and vegetables, I correctly identify 1000 oranges, but also include one tangerine and one clementine. I still was *factually correct* in my identification of all those oranges. My incorrect identification of the one tangerine and one clementine doesn't change that.
Science works the same way. Sure, sometimes there are sea changes in which the paradigm is turned on its head (there is one galaxy in the universe versus there are many), but for the most part, it is exactly as you say: science gets it "right", but the degree of "rightness" expands as the theories improve.
In my analogy, it was not until Einstein's Relativity came along that scientists were able to explain with clarity the precise areas in which Newton got it "wrong". But though it may take a long time to identify which of my 1000 oranges is in fact a clementine, and perhaps still longer to say which is a tangerine, none of that changes the *fact* that I correctly identified all those other oranges, and I should be allowed to sell the damn things.
The general public needs to understand this, and when there is overwhelming consensus around a scientific theory among the community of scientist that work in the field, the public should simply say "For the purposes of making the best decisions possible - this theory describes the facts well enough to move forward."
GO
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2011 - 01:16pm PT
|
Regarding your earlier post, Ed, about human nature, I agree 100%
We must remember that we are simply smart animals, no more, no less. We have a teeny tiny little thread of reason in the vast pattern that makes up our nature. For the most part, it is just enough to serve the rest of our nature, and help it get what it desires that much more efficiently. Yes, it can do more than that, if we really work at it. But remember, we were not programmed to do more than that, so it takes extraordinary efforts.
GO
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2011 - 03:33pm PT
|
How typical that the Liberal Dr F does not want to see opposing views. Just because The Chief regularly wins the debate.
Remind us again Dr F why censorship is a good thing for you Warmists?
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2011 - 03:44pm PT
|
Yeah, Al Gore's mansion ain't exactly Dennis Weaver's house of recycled
car tires. I bet one month's electricity for that monstrosity would be more
than my yearly bill.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 22, 2011 - 04:14pm PT
|
Ed, the NPR story you posted (Climate Change: Public Skeptical, Scientists Sure) is quite telling.
Here are some interesting excerpts, in case somebody missed it:
Most Americans are unaware that the National Academy of Sciences, known for its cautious and even-handed reviews of the state of science, is firmly on board with climate change. It has been for years.
That's not just the view of the U.S. National Academies. There's also a consensus statement from the presidents of science academies from around the world, including the academies of China, the United Kingdom, India, Japan, Russia, France, Brazil, the list goes on.
And lastly:
Anthony Leiserowitz, who directs the Yale University Project on Climate Change Communication, says, "Most Americans have overwhelming trust in the science and trust in scientists."
But the public is largely unaware of the consensus because that's not what they're hearing on cable TV or reading in blogs.
"They mostly get exposed to a much more conflicted view, and that's of course not by accident," he said.
The Chief, CC, how long will you bury your heads in the sand? Really it does not matter, the physical laws will have their way.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!